The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday there are too many unknowns about CBD products to regulate them as foods or supplements under the agency’s current structure and called on Congress to create new rules for the massive and growing market. The marijuana-derived products have become increasingly popular in lotions, tinctures and foods, while their legal status has been murky in the U.S. There’s not enough evidence about CBD to confirm that it’s safe for use in foods or as a dietary supplement, FDA Deputy Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock said in a statement. “For example, we have not found adequate evidence to determine how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm,” she said. The FDA has oversight of CBD because it is the active ingredient in an approved prescription drug, Epidiolex, used to treat two rare seizure disorders. Under FDA regulations, a drug can’t be added to food or sold as a dietary supplement if officials haven’t determined if it’s safe or effective for other conditions. Questions remain about CBD’s effects on the liver, the male reproductive system and on pregnant women and children, the statement said. New rules could include clear labels, regulations regarding contaminants, limits on CBD levels and requirements, such as a minimum purchase age. Regulations are also needed for CBD products for animals, the agency said. CBD often comes from a cannabis plant known as hemp, which is defined by the U.S. government as having less than 0.3% THC, the compound that causes marijuana’s mind-altering effect. CBD doesn’t cause that high, but fans of the products claim benefits including relief for pain and anxiety. The FDA’s action comes after repeated calls from lawmakers, advocates and consumer groups for CBD to be allowed in foods and supplements. The agency also denied three petitions from advocacy groups that had asked the agency to allow products that contain the hemp ingredient to to be marketed as dietary supplements. Steve Mister, chief of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group for the supplement industry and one of the petitioners, expressed dismay at the denial and said FDA was “kicking the can down the road while ignoring the realities of the marketplace” by referring the issue to Congress. Read More: How to Be Mindful if You Hate Meditating “FDA has repeatedly disregarded evidence demonstrating safety that is relevant to CBD at the levels commonly used in supplements and continues to rely heavily on safety concerns related to high dosage Epidiolex to support the agency’s inaction,” Mister said in a statement. The FDA will continue to take action against CBD and other cannabis products to protect the public, Thursday’s statement said. The agency has sent warning letters to some companies making health claims for CBD. Marijuana itself remains illegal at the federal level in the U.S., although it has been allowed for medical and recreational use in many states, including use in pot-laced food and drinks. from https://ift.tt/W5UYOBR Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/
0 Comments
There’s a certain disconnect that plagues almost everyone nowadays: Your body is doing one thing—sitting in a meeting, eating dinner with the family—while your brain is miles away. Some might call it multitasking, but mental-health experts say it’s more problematic. Corrie Goldberg, a clinical psychologist and founder of Shore Therapy Center for Wellness in the Chicago area, says that a lack of mindfulness can deprive us of a deep connection to our most meaningful experiences. “Our body moves through the motions of life, but our head isn’t in the game,” she says. Not being grounded in the moment—instead allowing our thoughts to skip from place to place—is an open invitation to stress and unpleasant emotions. “Our minds tend to focus on worries about the future, or upsets from the past, even when our body may be in a neutral or pleasant place.” Enter mindfulness. The now-ubiquitous concept, which is rooted in Buddhism, has surged in popularity in recent years and is generally defined as turning your attention inward and maintaining an awareness of your thoughts, bodily sensations, and environment. The benefits are vast. A mindfulness practice can help lower stress, reduce anxiety (as effectively as medication, in some cases), increase a person’s capacity to savor positive experiences, stop rumination, promote concentration, and more. Mindfulness can also help cure the blahs. Three years into the pandemic, Kelly Neupert, a psychotherapist in Chicago, says that many of her clients feel like they’re languishing. Becoming more mindful has helped them get in touch with what they’re feeling and why, she says—and cultivated a greater capacity to handle life’s curveballs. After adopting a mindfulness practice, “I typically see that they’re less reactive and more intentional,” Neupert says. “They can respond to other people rather than react. The things that used to set them off, like running late for work or getting cut off, feel more tolerable.” Meditation is the best-known way to achieve mindfulness—but it isn’t appealing to and doesn’t work for everyone. Some find that it’s awkward, or that they have trouble sitting still. Fortunately, “a person can practice mindfulness while engaged in literally any activity,” Goldberg says, and with any available amount of time. Here are eight ways to practice mindfulness if meditation isn’t your thing. Listen to musicSound can be energizing, calming, or both. Getting lost in a good song is considered an effective way to practice mindfulness. Before deciding to engage mindfully with any activity, including listening to a favorite album, consider what counts as focused attention, Goldberg advises. That way, you’ll be able to tell if your mind starts to wander. For example, being focused on your playlist might mean “noticing the melody, observing how your body feels and moves without judgment, or focusing on the words of the song or the sound of the instruments,” she says. If you’re midway through a tune and notice you’re thinking about your grocery list, let the thought go and return your attention to mindfully listening to the beat. Walk your dogSay you’re heading outside with your mini schnauzer. Instead of allowing your mind to drift to the workday ahead, or the errands you need to run, stay focused on the present by cataloging all the things your senses are experiencing, advises Joy Rains, author of Meditation Illuminated: Simple Ways to Manage Your Busy Mind. “Notice your dog’s tail wagging, the sounds of his panting or his nails clicking on the pavement, and the feel of his warm breath,” she says. “Any time your mind wanders, gently shift your attention back to your dog, even if it’s every second or two.” Focus on your movementsAs you walk into the office in the morning—or through any other doors that make you nervous—aim to focus solely on your movements. Rains suggests paying special attention to your feet connecting with the ground, and repeating the words “lifting, moving, placing, shifting.” “As you lift your right leg, silently say ‘lifting,’” she instructs. As you move forward, say “moving,” and then “placing” as you make contact with the ground. As you shift your weight to the other foot, note what you’re doing. Then begin the process again with your left leg. “Continue silently repeating these words to yourself as you walk,” Rains says. Doing so will help ward off unwelcome worries. Soak up natureResearch suggests that spending even brief amounts of time in nature promotes well-being, a pleasant mood, and alertness. And a meta-analysis published in 2019 concluded that “nature-based mindfulness is moderately superior to mindfulness conducted in non-natural settings.” If you want to get mindful in nature, head to a park or favorite trail for a walk or run. Pick one sense to focus on, suggests Maureen Kane, a therapist based in Bellingham, Wash. If you choose sight, for example, ask yourself: What are you seeing, what colors stand out, and what textures can you identify? As Kane puts it: “How many blue things are there? Are there patterns in the leaves?” Or maybe you’ll spend time with sound. Pay attention to what you hear—the far-away sounds, as well as those overhead. “Every time your mind wanders, go back to the sense you were focusing on, or switch it if you get bored,” she says. Take a beverage breakCoffee has a way of disappearing before you even notice you’re drinking it, especially on busy mornings. Mindfulness experts suggest carving out a few minutes to truly savor your hot drink of choice. “Feel your mug with your hands, and smell the aroma,” Kane suggests. “How does your drink feel when it passes your lips, rolls over your tongue, goes down your throat?” Mulling over these questions will help you stay grounded and start your day on a positive note. Use the 5-4-3-2-1 methodOne popular mindfulness exercise can be particularly helpful in moments of panic, when you’re grasping for shortcuts to calm. The 5-4-3-2-1 method, as it’s often called, involves using all five senses to “get into your body and out of your busy mind,” says Tina Hnatiuk, a mindfulness teacher in British Columbia. She describes it like this: Identify five things that you can see, and four things you can touch. Then listen for three things you can hear, two things you can smell, and one thing you can taste—or that you’re grateful for. The exercise helps people feel “safe, calm, and at peace,” Hnatiuk notes. Do a puzzle
The missing piece of your mindfulness routine might be working on a puzzle. In addition to being a fun way to pass time, experts say jigsaw puzzles exercise your brain, foster creativity, and promote mindfulness. Neupert likes puzzles because they offer structure, without an overwhelming amount of rules. As you start fitting together knobs and holes, she suggests asking yourself these questions: “What does the puzzle piece feel like in your hands? What does the picture on the box look like? How does it feel to fit two pieces together? Do you feel urgency to finish it, or content going at your own speed?” All can help center you in the present, pushing away thoughts about what’s about to happen or what’s already occurred. Spend time journalingWriting in a journal can decrease stress, help nurture a positive mood, and improve short-term memory. Experts say journaling two or three times a week is an excellent way to become more mindful and glean helpful insights about your everyday life. If you don’t know how to get started, take the pressure off: Rather than following a specific prompt, Neupert recommends adopting a free-form approach. “Just brain dump anything that’s happening in your mind, without judgment,” she says. “Any thoughts you’re having, anything you’re notifying around the room, anything you’re noticing in your body—just write it down.” Don’t worry about grammar or selecting sophisticated words; instead, think of the exercise as cultivating curiosity about what’s happening in your body and mind at that very moment, she says. from https://ift.tt/0UTd7mv Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ The Omicron variant has morphed into more than half a dozen different strains—the latest of which include BQ.1.1 and XBB.1, and XBB.1.5. Combined, these variants and their close relatives now account for nearly 90% of new COVID-19 infections in the U.S. But so far, no COVID-19 vaccine directly targets them. Instead, the latest bivalent formulation of the booster (and the only one currently available) was designed against the Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5, which are no longer widely circulating. So how well does it protect against the newer ones? The first look at a vaccine’s effectiveness generally comes from lab-based data analyzing serum from vaccinated people, while real-world data show how those numbers translate to actual protection and symptoms of disease. Two new reports provide both types of evidence—and the best picture yet of how the bivalent booster is faring in the face of newer Omicron variants. The upshot? Even though the bivalent vaccine was not designed to target them, it still provides some protection against the latest variants. On Jan. 25, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report real-world data conducted from December 1, 2022 to January 13, 2023—when the new variants were becoming more prevalent—showing that vaccinated people who were boosted with the bivalent shot were half as likely as vaccinated people who didn’t get the bivalent booster to become infected with these variants and experience at least one symptom of COVID-19. On the same day, in a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), scientists at the University of Texas and Pfizer-BioNTech (which makes one of the FDA-authorized bivalent shots), reported that the bivalent vaccine still provides some protection against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1. In the real-world CDC data, researchers show that the bivalent booster is reducing COVID-19 among those who receive it, and that protection from disease against the newest variants is similar to that against the BA.5 variant. That’s “reassuring that the vaccines are continuing to work,” says the CDC’s Ruth Link-Gelles, lead author of the report. Researchers behind the NEJM paper analyzed data from vaccinated and boosted people enrolled in the trials for the original Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, who received a fourth dose of the original vaccine, and another group that received three doses of the original vaccine and a fourth dose of the bivalent vaccine. The researchers had blood samples from the day the participants received their fourth dose, as well as samples taken one month later, so they could measure antibody levels against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1 in the same people. After one month, people who received the bivalent booster generated antibodies that were on average nearly three times higher than those produced by people who were given a fourth shot of the original formula. “This is the best [data] you can get on this question in human trials,” says Pei-Yong Shi, professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston and co-senior author of the study. “The neutralizing antibody response is clearly better than [that provided] by the [original] vaccine.” In this study, the bivalent booster was slightly better at generating virus-fighting antibodies than in previous studies, which found only small differences between people boosted with the original and bivalent vaccines in terms of antibodies generated against BQ.1.1 and XBB.1. (Unpublished data from these groups shows similarly small differences with XBB.1.5.) In those studies, however, blood wasn’t collected from people before and after their fourth booster dose; instead, the scientists compared blood from different groups of people who had been either boosted with the original or bivalent doses. A strength of the NEJM study is that “you can clearly calculate what is the contribution of the fourth dose and quantify the differences between the original and bivalent doses,” says Shi. Shi also notes that in previous studies, scientists used a so-called pseudovirus, which contained only the spike protein of the virus, to test in the lab how much antibody was present in the blood sera. In the current study, a more complete version of SARS-CoV-2 was used, which likely better mimics what happens in the body. Still, Shi acknowledges that the response produced by the bivalent vaccine against the newest variants isn’t dramatic. “We have to acknowledge that BQ.1.1. and XBB.1 really knock down or evade the antibody response substantially,” he says. The researchers also found that the virus-fighting antibody levels produced by vaccinated and boosted people who had recovered from a previous infection were in general lower than those generated by vaccinated and boosted people who had never been infected, regardless of whether they received the original or bivalent booster. That could reflect the fact that people who have been infected tend to start out with a higher baseline of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 than those who have never encountered any variant. The bottom line is that even though the strain included in the booster no longer matches the variants currently causing infections—and even though antibody levels aren’t very high against the latest variants—a person’s entire COVID-19 vaccine history continues to play an important role in their immune response. The original vaccines taught the immune system to produce long-lasting T cells against the virus, which helps reduce a person’s risk of severe disease. And the bivalent booster appears to be doing its job at keeping the immune system sharp against Omicron’s onslaught. from https://ift.tt/3bNfEY8 Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ High cholesterol is a prime example of having too much of a good thing. Our bodies naturally make this substance in the liver and then transport it throughout the body for multiple functions, including hormone regulation, cell tissue regeneration, and vitamin absorption. When the system is working well, cholesterol can boost overall health. But when a certain type called low-density lipoprotein—LDL, sometimes dubbed the “bad” kind—is overproduced, not only does it block the “good” kind called high-density lipoprotein (HDL), but it can also begin to accumulate in the arteries and form thick, hard deposits. This narrows the space for blood flow and raises the risk of blood clots, which can lead to heart attack or stroke. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that about 93 million American adults have high cholesterol, which represents about 36% of the U.S. adult population. High cholesterol rarely presents with symptoms in its early stages, which is why knowing your cholesterol levels and reducing LDL if it’s getting too high is crucial for heart health. For many people, a type of medication known as statins may be a recommended step for cardiovascular risk prevention. First approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1985, these drugs work by blocking a substance your body uses to make cholesterol, which can reduce the level of LDL cholesterol and also help stabilize the plaques on blood vessels so they don’t break off and become problematic. According to the CDC, statin use has been growing for the past decade, and nearly 39 million Americans take a statin daily. Usage increases over age 40 since heart risks tend to escalate as we get older. However, a statin prescription isn’t a guarantee for everyone. Here are answers to five key questions about this common medication, along with advice on when to talk to your doctor. How do statins work?Much like lowering production in a factory, statins work by reducing the amount of cholesterol produced by the liver. They also help the liver remove cholesterol already in the blood, which can reduce the chances that you’ll develop deposits in the arteries. This differs from other types of cholesterol-lowering medications because rather than trying to eliminate excess cholesterol once it’s manufactured, statins target the source of that production. For example, injectable medicines called PCSK9 inhibitors lower cholesterol by blocking the LDL receptors in the body, resulting in how much cholesterol circulates in the bloodstream. There’s also niacin, sometimes called nicotinic acid, which works by raising HDL cholesterol levels—an action that lowers LDL cholesterol as a result. Read More: What to Know About High Cholesterol in Kids Has the thinking on who should get statins changed over the past few years?As more statins have become available—there are now seven options—and usage of these medications has increased, scientists’ understanding of cholesterol and heart disease has also evolved, says Dr. Adriana Quinones-Camacho, a cardiologist at NYU Langone in New York. “The more we learn about heart disease and cholesterol, the more nuanced the recommendations have become,” she notes. “In the past, the level of total cholesterol, and especially LDL, may have been the biggest consideration for statin use, but that’s not the case anymore.” For example, age is an incredibly important variable. Research published in the journal Clinical Epidemiology in 2016 suggests the statin prescription rate has increased the most for people ages 50 to 59, while slowing slightly for those ages 60 to 74. Research within the past decade has also clarified the strong association between diabetes and heart disease, especially if someone also has high cholesterol. If you have diabetes, you’re already twice as likely to have heart disease or experience a stroke—and at a younger age—than someone without the condition. Additional factors like cholesterol and high blood pressure could make it much more likely that your doctor would suggest a statin, says Quinones-Camacho. “As we have more data and evidence about cholesterol’s effect on the body, as well as research on these other variables, it gives us more information we can use to tailor our recommendations around statins for each patient,” she adds. Would someone with high cholesterol automatically be a candidate for statins?In August 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that people aged 40 to 75 who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease should consult with a health care professional about taking a statin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke. Although high LDL and low HDL numbers are two of the main considerations when it comes to statin recommendations, they’re not the only ones, says Dr. Kevin Ferentz, chair of the department of family medicine and lead physician at GBMC Health Partners Primary Care in Maryland. “High cholesterol is only one factor in the development of heart disease,” he says. “Others—like smoking, high blood pressure, and diabetes—play a role as well.” A physician will consider your age, general physical condition, family history of heart issues, and presence of other chronic illnesses, adds Dr. Jennifer Wong, a cardiologist and medical director of non-invasive cardiology at MemorialCare Heart and Vascular Institute at Orange Coast Medical Center in California. Combining all of these factors isn’t done through intuition—there’s a standardized risk calculator used by health professionals that looks at nine different factors and calculates the 10-year probability of heart disease development. In some cases, Wong says, this score can prompt people to make important lifestyle changes that might lower their risk without the use of medication. Most notably, quitting smoking is a huge benefit to cardiovascular health that may drop LDL cholesterol on its own. When combined with healthy eating and regular exercise, it’s possible a patient may get cholesterol levels into a better range within just a few months, while also improving their blood pressure and diabetes symptoms if either of those are present. However, the variables that can’t be changed—like genetics and age—may be more prominent and increase risk to the point of making statins advisable, Wong says. And one factor that almost always drives statin recommendations? Having a prior heart event. “If someone has experienced a heart attack or stroke, they will very likely be a candidate for statins, regardless of their cholesterol level,” she says. “If they also have hypertension or diabetes in addition to a heart event, they will almost certainly be advised to take statins.” Read More: How to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally What are the most prevalent side effects?Considering that statins have been increasingly used for nearly 40 years, there’s ample data on side effects as well as the balance of reward versus risk, Ferentz says. In general, statins tend to be well tolerated, and the majority of people taking them have no side effects, particularly if they’re well monitored. Some people who start statins experience elevated blood sugar levels. For most people, this isn’t a concern, Wong says, but if you’re prediabetic and that slight elevation increases the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, that may require a treatment change. However, she adds, the conversation with your health provider will center around whether the benefit of taking a statin may outweigh the risk. Beyond that, doctors typically check liver function before people start a statin, and again on an annual basis. “Statins occasionally do raise liver function concerns,” Ferentz says. In certain cases, like if a patient is experiencing liver damage, statins might be discontinued completely and replaced with other medications. The main side effect associated with statins is myopathy, a neuromuscular disorder that causes muscle pain. Statin-associated muscle symptoms can include mild-to-moderate pain, fatigue, weakness, and night cramps, and can be confirmed via a blood test. Research suggests that up to 25% of people on statins experience some type of muscle issues. In rare cases, this can progress to more serious conditions such as rhabdomyolysis, in which damaged muscle tissues release compounds like protein and electrolytes into the blood, potentially affecting the kidneys and heart. However, that occurs only if muscle pain goes untreated, says Wong. Most people who are experiencing higher levels of discomfort and side effects can be switched to a different statin or even a non-statin cholesterol-lowering option that may resolve muscle problems. “Every medication has side effects, and statins are no exception,” Wong adds. While muscle pain is the most common complaint, she also hears about sleep difficulties, digestive troubles, and dizziness. “In all these instances, we’re fortunate to have several types of statins available,” she says. “So it’s easy to change to one that might work better. Sometimes, just lowering the dosage can have a major effect.” When should you talk to your doctor?Even if you’re generally healthy—you don’t have any other chronic conditions, you eat healthy, you don’t smoke, and you exercise regularly—you can still have high cholesterol. Keep in mind that it rarely presents with symptoms. Getting your cholesterol checked after age 40 is crucial, but Quinones-Camacho suggests knowing your numbers decades before that, too. Most likely, younger people won’t be put on statins, but having a baseline for your cholesterol levels to monitor can help lower heart-health risks overall. Regardless of your age, talk to your doctor if you have a family history of heart disease. You’ll also want to stay on top of your cholesterol numbers if you smoke now or did in the past, or if you have high blood pressure, diabetes, less-than-ideal nutrition, or sedentary behavior. “In the end, like everything in medicine, statin use will come down to what’s best for an individual,” Quinones-Camacho says. “Two people of the same age with the exact same cholesterol numbers may be managed very differently in terms of cholesterol-reduction plans.” As with everything else in medicine, prevention is preferable to treatment. “So the earlier you talk to your doctor, the better.” from https://ift.tt/oArgJDE Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ Research has consistently shown that people who have a good relationship with their therapist get the most out of therapy. But figuring out which mental-health provider is the right fit for your personality and needs—not to mention, who’s affordable and available—is a daunting task. “I tell friends that they should like talking to their therapist and feel like their therapist likes talking to them, because a strong relationship will generally lead to better outcomes,” says Emily Maynard, a licensed clinical psychologist in California. She acknowledges that it can be hard to find the right fit, and doing so sometimes requires casting a wide net—and not getting discouraged. “I see people sticking it out in a situation they don’t feel is helping them because they’re embarrassed or ashamed or don’t want to hurt the therapist’s feelings, or don’t know that they have other options,” she says. “It’s important to normalize that different therapists work in different ways, and work well with different issues.” Conversely, not every therapist has the expertise and training to appropriately treat every problem—for example, religious trauma. Most practitioners offer free 15-minute phone consultations before you book an appointment; otherwise, you can use that first session to figure out if you’d like to work together. With the guidance of Maynard and other mental-health experts, we’ve put together a list of 12 statements to reflect on before your first meeting. On a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), rate the following statements according to how important they are to you. You want your therapist to be the same gender as you.While research indicates that a therapist’s gender alone typically doesn’t influence the outcomes of treatment, some people naturally feel more comfortable with a certain gender—perhaps because of a previous trauma—or with a non-binary therapist. It’s fairly easy to ascertain what gender a therapist identifies with: Most list it on their website, and online therapist directories, like those run by Psychology Today and Good Therapy, allow users to filter results by gender. Psychologist Emily Maynard also suggests utilizing resources like the National Queer & Trans Therapists of Color Network. You want your therapist to be around your age.“You might want a therapist who’s your age because of relatability, and because it feels like it increases your chances that you’ll be seen and well-understood,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, a psychologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and head of research at the Mental Health Coalition. On the other hand, someone might seek out an older therapist who they feel mirrors a caregiving figure, which can be “soothing and comforting.” A younger therapist, who’s earlier in their training, might be more adept with telehealth platforms, mental-health apps, and other technologies. But you might feel that an older provider has “been around the block a few times,” Torres-Mackie points out, and value their extra wisdom and experience. Age could also affect how much you pay: Early-career therapists are typically cheaper than those who have been practicing for decades. At some universities, graduate students who are studying psychology offer low-cost therapy—and because they’re supervised by an instructor, it’s almost like having two therapists for the price of one. Choosing a younger vs. older practitioner is a personal decision. While you can certainly ask a therapist their age, not all will provide it, says Lynn Bufka, associate chief of practice transformation with the American Psychological Association. As a workaround, “it’s reasonable to ask someone how many years of experience they have.” But, she adds, age “doesn’t make much difference in terms of outcome.” Your therapist should have an identity similar to yours, including religious affiliation, race, and/or cultural background.Working with a therapist who has a similar lived experience to yours can offer security and affirmation. That’s especially true if you’re seeking therapy to deal with a cultural or religious issue, says Bisma Anwar, a licensed mental health counselor with Talkspace. In that case, “you’ll want to go to someone who really understands the context of it.” But there can also be value in working with a therapist who has a different identity and can broaden your perspective. Anwar, for example, is Muslim, and her therapist is not. Some of her peers feel strongly about connecting with a practitioner who has the same religion and culture, but she’s pointed out to them that it can make the already difficult process of finding a therapist even harder, because of how much you’re narrowing the pool. “My therapist doesn’t share my religious background, and doesn’t share my culture, and I’ve still been able to build a really great connection with her,” she says. Working with a therapist from a different background can even be healing, says New York-based psychologist Naomi Torres-Mackie. For example, if a person of color who has experienced racial trauma meets with a white therapist, “the assumption would certainly be, this white therapist won’t get it. They can’t understand me,” she says. While that might be true to an extent, it also presents the opportunity “to have a very meaningful, deep relationship with somebody who is white and represents the folks who have been harmful to you.” If identity match is high on your list of requirements, start by diving into online therapist directories. Most allow you to filter results based on factors like language, sexual orientation, and faith. If it’s still unclear how your therapist identifies, don’t feel shy about asking during your first conversation. You’re interested in a specific type of therapy.Some of the most common types of therapy include psychoanalysis, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy. Many overlap, and therapists often use a blend, depending on their clients’ needs and preferences. To get a feel for what to expect, New York-based psychologist Naomi Torres-Mackie suggests asking three questions during the first session:
If you’re not familiar with the differences between, say, CBT and DBT, dig deeper by asking follow-up questions that will capture the experience. For example, Torres-Mackie advises, ask your therapist to walk you through a typical session, and find out whether there will be an agenda and if you should plan on between-session assignments. For example, homework is common with CBT: You might be instructed to write in a journal or do role-playing exercises. You feel strongly about the type of feedback you want to receive.Compatible communication styles can help any relationship work well, including in therapy. One way to tell if it’s a fit is that you find the way your therapist delivers feedback palatable. Mental-health professionals who specialize in psychoanalysis tend to “allow the client to do most of the talking, maybe offer some validation, and just really listen a lot throughout the session,” says Abby Wilson, a psychotherapist based in Houston. They might ask questions that guide the client to make their own connections and insights, and structured feedback is limited. CBT practitioners, meanwhile, are typically more direct and solutions-oriented, and offer abundant feedback about your thought processes, assumptions, and more. To get a feel for your potential therapist’s style, ask them these questions: Do you offer a lot of feedback and direction, or are you more hands-off? Do you spend most of the session asking questions, or do you adopt a more observatory role? Do you tend to focus on affirmation, or gently challenging your clients? Do you provide any written feedback? Experts stress that you get to play a role in shaping your own therapy experience. If you meet with a therapist who nods their head throughout much of your session, and that doesn’t suit you, tell them that you were hoping for more active feedback. And keep in mind that communication styles might naturally evolve as you get to know each other: “I’m direct when I feel like the client and I have a really great relationship,” says Bisma Anwar, a mental health counselor with Talkspace. “It’s built over time.” You’re looking for specific expertise.Lots of people who pursue therapy are dealing with a specific issue, like childhood or religious trauma, an eating disorder, or career struggles. In those cases, it can be helpful to secure a therapist with specific training, experience, and expertise. Google and online directories are your friend, “because if somebody’s an expert in something, they’re going to market that,” says Houston-based psychotherapist Abby Wilson. During your first conversation, she recommends asking: Have you treated people in similar situations to me, and what was the outcome? Did the clients drop out or experience success? Expertise is “definitely important in finding the right fit,” she says. It’s important that your therapist is your intellectual equal.A sense of intellectual kinship can be “important because it’s related to trust,” says psychologist Emily Maynard. “Can I trust this person knows at least as much about the world as I do? If so, then I can trust their expertise in therapy.” It might take time to determine if you and your therapist are intellectual equals, or even (sometimes even more importantly) if you just vibe well. One clue is if you have similar vocabularies. Inquiring about what licenses and certifications a therapist has, and what professional organizations they belong to, is another way to get a feel for intellectual priorities. Abby Wilson, a psychotherapist based in Houston, suggests asking: “What do you believe sets you apart from other therapists, and what do you enjoy most about being a therapist?” Responses can shine a light on passion and sophistication. You can also ask your therapist if she’s been in therapy herself, and how recently. Not everyone will feel comfortable answering, but those who reveal that they have their own therapists are, in a way, demonstrating their investment in the system, and that they believe therapy is effective. “Therapists who do really high-quality work tend to have done a lot of work on themselves and been in long-term therapy or are currently in therapy,” says Naomi Torres-Mackie, a psychologist in New York. “I’m in my own therapy, and I will be as long as I’m practicing clinically.” You want to define success the same way.Ideally, you’re going to get something out of going to therapy. Be clear about your goals, and make sure you and your therapist both agree they make sense. It can be helpful to learn about how progress is measured; some therapists, for example, use weekly questionnaires to keep track of clients’ emotional state and symptom improvement. It may also help to ask your therapist how they define success, says psychotherapist Abby Wilson, and how you’ll know when you’re done with therapy. Your therapist should be able to offer an estimate of how long they anticipate seeing you, given the issues you’re dealing with, and what will inform decisions to scale back or end sessions. You only want to meet your therapist online.Online therapy became the norm for many during the pandemic. If you’re only interested in meeting remotely, you’ll have more options now than you would have a few years ago. It’s important to make sure that any therapist you’re considering working with is licensed to practice in the state where you’ll be based, says psychologist Emily Maynard. Once that’s out of the way, she suggests turning the conversation to logistical expectations: Will you both have your cameras on? Does it matter where you’re located during the video meeting? What platform is used, and how does the technology work? It’s also wise to ask your potential therapist what the main differences are between online and in-person sessions, and what kind of challenges to expect, says psychotherapist Abby Wilson. And keep in mind that online therapy isn’t appropriate for everyone. If someone is dealing with a high-risk issue like self-harm, an eating disorder, or suicidal thoughts, a mental-health professional might prefer to meet with them in person. Ask your therapist about instances when they would advise meeting face-to-face, Wilson advises. Your therapist needs to be affordable.Mental-health care can be expensive. If you’re concerned about cost, the first question to ask a potential therapist’s office is whether or not they accept your insurance. If you end up wanting to work with a therapist who won’t bill your insurance, ask if they’ll provide an invoice you can submit for at least partial reimbursement out of network. Then, make sure you understand what each session will cost and how often you’ll need to meet. Ask what happens if you can’t pay the stated fee; some therapists offer sliding-scale fees that vary based on income. Bisma Anwar, a licensed mental health counselor with Talkspace, recommends a few favorite resources for finding reduced rates: the Institute for Contemporary Psychotherapy, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy Study Center, and Open Path Collective. You can also reach out to a local community center or university, says psychologist Emily Maynard. Many offer low-cost options, sometimes with therapists who are currently in training. You want your therapist to be flexible about scheduling—and easy to reach.Therapy isn’t going to work if you don’t go. That means it’s crucial to determine if your therapist will be available when you are. To figure out if it’s a match, ask about evening and weekend hours, how long sessions are, and if you’ll have a standing appointment, or a different time slot every week, advises Lynn Bufka, associate chief of practice transformation with the American Psychological Association. What’s the cancellation policy? Will your therapist be unavailable for any planned stretch of time? It’s also helpful to inquire about how you can expect to communicate; for example, Bufka texts with her clients to schedule appointments, but not about clinical problems—and she explains that policy at the onset. You should ask your therapist whether and how you will be able to reach them between sessions, and what kind of response time you can expect. If you need to hop on the phone, and the call stretches beyond a certain length, you can likely expect a charge, Bufka says, so make sure you’re clear on that. How the office is set up is important.Space communicates a lot, psychologist Emily Maynard points out. “It’s important to make sure you feel safe and comfortable” in any office where you might have appointments. If you’re dealing with religious trauma, for example, you wouldn’t want to see a therapist with religious symbols displayed on the desks or walls. You can also do a general vibe check during your first session: Are there a lot of people waiting? Does the check-in process feel efficient? Does the therapist have a support staff or manage everything themself? Do you find the space to be calming and quiet, somewhere you can think and speak, or is there distracting noise? Another aspect of office set-up has to do with privacy, notes New York-based psychologist Naomi Torres-Mackie. Is the office street-level, with a big name-plate that says “psychotherapist”? That might mean passersby will know you’re going to therapy—does that bother you? You should also consider whether you’d prefer a hospital setting or a private practice. Some people gravitate toward hospitals: “That feels comfortable and makes sense to them,” Torres-Mackie says. “And then there are other folks who want a more homey, warm environment, with nice lighting and plants, in which case private practice would make more sense.” from https://ift.tt/hnv0l9N Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ These days, Flora Ellis’s mother keeps a stash of morning-after pills in a closet in their Oklahoma home. That’s not just because she’s a “cool mom,” although Ellis, 20, confirms that she is. It’s because Ellis was born with a connective-tissue disorder that prevents her body from properly making collagen. In addition to limiting her mobility and contributing to frequent injuries, Ellis’s condition means that pregnancy comes with a chance of organ rupture. Now that abortion is banned in Oklahoma, neither Ellis nor her mother want to take chances. Ellis’s health issues prevent her from using some forms of birth control, so the trove of morning-after pills serves as an extra insurance policy. “It makes me feel very unsafe that I might have less access [to abortion] now,” Ellis says. The fall of Roe v. Wade, and the subsequent wave of abortion bans and restrictions in U.S. states, have grave implications for the estimated 26% of U.S. adults with a disability. Pregnancy can be dangerous for anyone, says Dr. Louise Perkins King, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, but people who enter pregnancy with underlying health issues are at even greater risk. Ensuring that all people, including those with disabilities, have access to essential medical care includes guaranteeing “the option of termination if it’s better for their health,” Perkins King says. In addition, abortion bans represent a threat to bodily autonomy, “a core principle of the disability rights movement,” as the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) wrote in a statement after a draft of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe leaked last May. “Policies that restrict access to abortion will drastically exacerbate threats to the autonomy, health, and overall well-being of disabled people.” Since then, a dozen U.S. states—including many in the South, the U.S. region with the highest rate of disability—have almost entirely banned abortion. For people with disabilities, those laws only compound long-standing obstacles to abortion care, says Joy Moonan, a Texas-based disability advocate and attorney who has cerebral palsy. Even securing reliable transportation to an abortion provider can be a challenge for someone with limited mobility, Moonan says, and many health care providers aren’t well-versed in caring for people with disabilities. In 2022, Senators Tammy Duckworth and Patty Murray introduced legislation meant to ease that problem by funding training programs for providers, as well as recruiting more people with disabilities into the health-care field, but it hasn’t progressed since being introduced. “People with disabilities also have sex. They want to start families, they want to date,” Moonan says. But “people don’t see people with disabilities that way.” Indeed, the U.S. has a terrible track record when it comes to providing ethical care for people with disabilities. Forced sterilization was common for much of the 20th century, and many states still have laws that allow it. Wanda Felty learned that reality after her daughter Kayla was born. Kayla’s brain did not fully form in utero, leading to significant cognitive and visual impairment. When Kayla, now 34, was young, well-meaning people told Felty to consider having her daughter’s uterus removed as a precaution against pregnancy, since sexual violence against people with disabilities is common. Almost 40% of female rape victims had a disability when they were assaulted, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Felty was floored, then angry, that anyone would suggest removing part of her daughter’s body without a medical need. Those emotions came rushing back after Roe fell last year. Felty, who lives in Oklahoma, works for an organization that supports people with disabilities and their families. After Oklahoma banned abortion, she began fielding calls from frantic parents who wanted to learn about sterilization for their children with disabilities—and got angry all over again. Though Felty was raised to believe that abortion is wrong, lived experience has changed her perspective. She’s enraged that, because lawmakers have taken away the option of abortion in some states, families are now making heartbreaking choices to protect their children. “We’ve taken away rights [instead of] protecting them from violent crimes,” she says. While most abortion bans do include narrow exceptions for victims of rape and incest, as well as medical emergencies that put the parent’s life at risk, providers in restrictive states may be hesitant to offer abortion care even if it fits one of those exceptions, for fear of legal, financial, or professional consequences. The loophole for medical emergencies can be particularly murky, since it’s not always clear what constitutes a “life-threatening” complication. That scares Ellis. Given her connective-tissue disorder, “there’s a risk when I get pregnant. Does [abortion] count [as life-saving] then?” Ellis says. “Or does it have to be once my uterus rips apart?” Keeley Knight, 24, has similar concerns. She was born with an under-developed heart and has known since she was a teenager that pregnancy and childbirth could place a potentially fatal amount of strain on her cardiovascular system. She has long used an IUD to prevent pregnancy, and she and her husband recently moved from Oklahoma to Kansas City, Mo.—in part because Knight would have better access to abortion, if necessary, with a short trip over the border to Kansas. Knight says many people she knows are deeply opposed to abortion, viewing it as against “God’s will.” But that argument doesn’t make any sense to her. “Me and God have fought for my life to get this far. You have no idea how hard we have fought,” Knight says. “I’m not going to just give that up because I got pregnant.” from https://ift.tt/cokH3ue Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ A month before his recent retirement, Dr. Anthony Fauci cautioned that the U.S. “certainly” remains in the midst of a COVID pandemic. Other experts repeatedly warn of impending “deadly” waves caused by the latest genetic variants, and recently President Biden once again extended the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Yet those dire warnings hinge largely on an assumption that some 400 people in the U.S. continue dying daily from the disease. There are important reasons to question this assertion, as Dr. Leana Wen explored in the Washington Post. And if therefore in fact we’re no longer in a public health emergency (which a renowned virologist in Germany concluded last month), then some growing calls for reinstating school mask mandates or other inappropriate restrictions should be dropped. For over a year, it has been apparent that many hospitalizations officially classified as being due to COVID-19 are instead of patients without COVID symptoms who are admitted for other reasons but also happen to test positive. Since nearly everyone is still routinely swabbed upon hospital admission (although the largest infection control organization has recommended against doing so), many patients with other conditions also receive a positive test result, especially during the ongoing Omicron surges—thereby overstating the number of hospitalizations tabulated as caused by COVID-19. UCLA researchers who examined Los Angeles County Public Hospital data discovered that over two-thirds of official COVID-19 hospitalizations since January 2022 were actually “with” rather than “for” the disease. A rigorous Massachusetts assessment determined that a comparable proportion of COVID hospitalizations were in fact incidental to the coronavirus. An attending physician at Emory Decatur Hospital (and former president of Georgia’s chapter of the Infectious Diseases Society) cited by Dr. Wen estimates that some 90% of patients diagnosed with COVID at his hospital are now instead being treated for another illness. Wen also quoted Tufts Hospital’s epidemiologist, who similarly observes that recently the proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 has been as low as 10% of the number reportedly having the disease. All this is fully consistent with the reality that by March 2022 over 95% of people had already been infected or vaccinated or typically both, and the resulting robust population immunity combined with the less virulent nature of Omicron results in far fewer severe outcomes. Growing recognition of the overcounting of COVID-19 hospitalizations has caused some local authorities as well as the CDC to try to better estimate the actual levels. Misclassified hospitalizations obviously suggest there have also been miscategorized deaths, yet a parallel recognition that undoubtedly many official COVID-19 deaths are similarly due to persons dying with instead of from the coronavirus has only begun to emerge. CDC guidelines still stipulate that any death from (any) illness occurring within 30 days of a positive test result automatically be classified as due to COVID-19. Hence, if the current prevalence in the population is, say, 3% (towards the lower end of typical levels during major surges like the present one) then the background prevalence among persons admitted to hospitals for other reasons—and also among those who end up dying —would similarly be around 3%. Considering about 9,200 total deaths occur daily in the U.S., then in this hypothetical scenario some 275 deaths ascribed to COVID (or approximately two-thirds of the official daily count) would in fact have been due to other causes. The former Milwaukee County chief medical examiner conducted a careful review of some 4,000 COVID-19 deaths reported during the pandemic there. His research revealed that nearly half had no link to COVID or in some cases only a “marginal” association, such as end stage cancer patients whose demise was possibly hastened by a few days or weeks, from catching the disease. An analysis of LA County and national data collected during the more recent waves of the highly contagious (but considerably less deadly) Omicron variants suggests that COVID-19 deaths are now likely being overcounted by at least fourfold. A newly published investigation from Denmark documented that, following the emergence of Omicron a year ago, an astonishing 65-75% of deaths officially attributed to COVID-19 have been merely incidental to the coronavirus, consistent with the above hypothetical exercise. Yet even if only half the currently reported deaths in the U.S. are not really caused by the virus, that would mean an actual daily COVID-19 toll of around 200, roughly the number dying during a bad flu season. In addition to overcounted numbers of COVID hospitalizations and deaths, another reason for maintaining a public health emergency is the purportedly massive wave of ongoing long COVID. Yet almost all long COVID reports are based on tabulations of the number of persons who self-report lingering symptoms post-infection, rather than controlled studies that carefully compare the prevalence of persistent symptoms in persons who have been infected to those who have not. An announcement on San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit trains warns that any of a number of common maladies, including headaches, anxiety, diarrhea, muscle aches and trouble concentrating, may be caused by long COVID. But case control studies have so far found, at most, only modest differences in symptom prevalence comparing between persons previously infected or not (and new research suggests most symptoms dissipate within a year). While long COVID is undeniably a significant problem, as are those deaths still actually caused by the coronavirus, rigorous analysis is needed to more accurately estimate the prevalence. The inadvertent exaggeration of COVID-19 deaths and long COVID leads not only to misplaced policy decisions, such as new mask mandates and booster recommendations for 6-month-old babies, but also to a needlessly enduring climate of fear, particularly in bluer regions (such as my hometown of San Francisco, where mask wearing remains commonplace, even outdoors). After three long years, it is past time to base public health pronouncements and policies on solid scientific evidence rather than well-meaning but often misleading assumptions. from https://ift.tt/fmcK34E Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ WASHINGTON — U.S. health officials want to make COVID-19 vaccinations more like the annual flu shot. The Food and Drug Administration on Monday proposed a simplified approach for future vaccination efforts, allowing most adults and children to get a once-a-year shot to protect against the mutating virus. This means Americans would no longer have to keep track of how many shots they’ve received or how many months it’s been since their last booster. The proposal comes as boosters have become a hard sell. While more than 80% of the U.S. population has had at least one vaccine dose, only 16% of those eligible have received the latest boosters authorized in August. The FDA will ask its panel of outside vaccine experts to weigh in at a meeting Thursday. The agency is expected to take their advice into consideration while deciding future vaccine requirements for manufacturers. In documents posted online, FDA scientists say many Americans now have “sufficient preexisting immunity” against the coronavirus because of vaccination, infection or a combination of the two. That baseline of protection should be enough to move to an annual booster against the latest strains in circulation and make COVID-19 vaccinations more like the yearly flu shot, according to the agency. Read More: How COVID-19 Immunity Works at This Point in the Pandemic For adults with weakened immune systems and very small children, a two-dose combination may be needed for protection. FDA scientists and vaccine companies would study vaccination, infection rates and other data to decide who should receive a single shot versus a two-dose series. FDA will also ask its panel to vote on whether all vaccines should target the same strains. That step would be needed to make the shots interchangeable, doing away with the current complicated system of primary vaccinations and boosters. The initial shots from Pfizer and Moderna — called the primary series — target the strain of the virus that first emerged in 2020 and quickly swept across the world. The updated boosters launched last fall were also tweaked to target omicron relatives that had been dominant. Under FDA’s proposal, the agency, independent experts and manufacturers would decide annually on which strains to target by the early summer, allowing several months to produce and launch updated shots before the fall. That’s roughly the same approach long used to select the strains for the annual flu shot. Ultimately, FDA officials say moving to an annual schedule would make it easier to promote future vaccination campaigns, which could ultimately boost vaccination rates nationwide. Read More: Here’s How Effective the Original Vaccines Are Against Omicron The original two-dose COVID shots have offered strong protection against severe disease and death no matter the variant, but protection against mild infection wanes. Experts continue to debate whether the latest round of boosters significantly enhanced protection, particularly for younger, healthy Americans. from https://ift.tt/d682IgL Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ Our cells, each composed of 100 trillion atoms made of particles from the Big Bang, are filled with all kinds of structures. These include organelles—little factories like energy-producing mitochondria—and tiny molecular machines like ATP synthase, whose rotor and shaft spin at up to 300 rpm to produce ATP, the molecules that transmit energy in our cells. The interior of our cells are also filled with all kinds of molecules randomly colliding at tremendous speeds. Water molecules, for example, zigzag at the astonishing speed of over 1 thousand miles an hour (although they only go about 4 billionths of an inch before they smack into another molecule). In addition to collisions, cells face a myriad of other threats from within and without. You might expect them to suffer the same fate as our cars and dishwashers and constantly break down. But they don’t. Your body has an ingenious three-part strategy to keep you out of the junkyard. The biophysicist Dan Kirschner told me that just thinking about everything that could go wrong in cells used to keep him awake at night. He was learning about cell development in a graduate school course just as his wife was about to have a baby. He was so overwhelmed by the many opportunities for mistakes that he feared his daughter would be born with a neck like a giraffe. She wasn’t. Our cells have come up with a number of clever strategies to avoid living short lives. The first is that their machinery is astonishingly reliable. Ribosomes, for instance, insert the wrong amino acid into a protein on the order of once every 10 thousand times. The machines that copy our DNA make a mistake only about one in a million to 10 million or so. Nonetheless, nothing is perfect. Sometimes, mistakes happen. Battering collisions, UV light, and dangerous molecules like free radicals also cause damage. Ingeniously, our cells have several ways to meet these threats. For one, they are full of clever repair mechanisms—machines whose jobs are to go on patrol to look for mistakes and fix them. Our cells have error-checking molecular machines and autocorrecting feedback loops that ensure remarkable fidelity. Read More: How Perfectionism Leads to Burnout—and What You Can Do About it A 1954 newspaper story in the Atlanta Constitution suggests a second strategy our cells have adopted to stay alive. “Bored with yourself? Tired of the same old frame and face? Take another look then. In a manner of speaking, you’re constantly being reborn. Mankind, like the automobile industry, goes in for a radical chassis change each year.” The science behind this odd claim was the work of an inventive nuclear physicist named Paul Aebersold. Aebersold began his career at the cyclotron in Berkeley’s Radiation Lab, which pioneered the production of radioactive isotopes. Later, at the Atomic Energy Commission, Aebersold oversaw the development of isotopes for medical uses. At some point, he realized he could use his isotopes to find out how often we replace the atoms in our bodies. All he had to do was irradiate a substance like table salt, ask an extremely accommodating subject to swallow it, and trace the salt’s path with a radiation-tracking device like a Geiger counter. You can follow radioactive atoms in quantities as small as “a billion billionth of an ounce,” Aebersold proudly told a television interviewer. He found that we swap out half of our carbon atoms every one to two months, and we replace a full 98% of all our atoms every year. Wait, what? Is that even possible? Apparently it is. Over half of you is water, and we know that we constantly replace that. Another large percentage of you is protein, and as you may recall, most proteins degrade within hours or days. We even disassemble and replace our ribosomes and large organelles such as mitochondria, which are made primarily of protein. Aebersold had discovered another strategy that enables our cells to live so long: our cells are constantly replacing their seemingly permanent structures and old battered molecular machines with new ones. The only ones they don’t replace are our massive chromosomes. Instead, we have machines that swarm along them looking for problems and fixing them. What if the damage to a cell is too great to repair? We have a fallback plan for that too. We simply destroy the entire cell, chop it up into recyclable units, and make a fresh one. On average, you replace most of your cells every 10 years, which amounts to about 330 billion cells a day. Those that work in the harshest conditions are retired most frequently. The damage to many cells in your intestines, which are exposed to harsh acids, is so predictable that they commit planned suicide and are replaced every two to four days. You replace your skin cells, which endure scrapes and UV light, every month or so. Your red blood cells, which take a beating as they careen through your bloodstream, are replaced every 120 days. That means you have to make almost 3.5 million new red blood cells every second. Other cells, like those in our bones, are taken out of commission less often, only about once every 10 years. So, in addition to using reliable machines, our cells have a three-pronged motto to stay alive: ceaselessly check for errors, constantly repair, and continually replace. In a way, your body is like a major New York highway—always open and always under repair. Adapted Excerpt from What’s Gotten Into You: The Story of Your Body’s Atoms, from the Big Bang Through Last Night’s Dinner by Dan Levitt. To be published by HarperCollins on Jan. 24, 2023. Copyright © 2023 by Daniel Levitt. All rights reserved. from https://ift.tt/jo4P2nH Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ Recent diet trends have promised that clocks are as important for weight loss as scales. One such diet is known as intermittent fasting, which entails a schedule of alternating fasting and eating. A popular intermittent fasting schedule is time-restricted eating. By restricting eating to a limited number of hours a day, some proponents of this diet argue people can harness their bodies’ natural rhythms to shed pounds. But according to new research, most recently a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association on Jan. 18, the time when you eat, in and of itself, doesn’t appear to be helpful for weight loss. In the study, 547 participants used a phone application to track their daily meals over a six-month period, which the researchers used to determine, on average, what times each person ate every day; how many meals they ate; whether the participants described each meal as small, medium, or large; and how much weight they gained or lost. Ultimately, they found that the time between participants’ first and last meal, and when they ate relative to the time they woke up or went to sleep didn’t impact weight. What did matter was the size of the participants’ meals: people who ate more large- or medium-sized meals were more likely to gain weight, while people who ate small meals were more likely to lose weight. Study co-author Dr. Wendy Bennett, a primary care doctor and associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, emphasized that this isn’t the final word on meal timing, in part because it’s an observational study—meaning the researchers didn’t control the conditions while they were happening, such as the calories they consumed. Krista Varady, a nutrition researcher who studies intermittent fasting at the University of Illinois, Chicago, who did not participate in the study says that there are several factors that may cloud the results, including the small sample size, its reliance on participants describing the size of their meals as large or small—and not log specific calorie counts—and the use of different scales to weigh the participants at doctors’ offices. Nevertheless, Varady agrees that there doesn’t seem to be any magic to eating at a certain time. But that doesn’t mean it’s an entirely useless concept. Restricting eating to certain times can help people to lose weight, Varady says, so long as it causes you to eat less. And for some, she notes, it can be easier to stick to than other diets that require you to count calories. For example, she says, previous research shows that it can help if you only eat within a six-to-eight hour window—say, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (six hours) or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (eight hours). Dr. Nisa Maruthur, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, agrees. “If your calories are the same, regardless of when you eat them, there’s not an impact on weight,” says Maruthur. However, establishing temporal boundaries can help. “If you decide you’re only eating between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., the fact is that you may eat fewer calories, just because you only fit [in] so many [meals] in that time.” Maruthur, who did not participate in this particular study, but is involved in a broader initiative at Johns Hopkins to examine meal timing, says that while eating at a particular time isn’t beneficial, she’d still recommend timed eating if it helps a particular person eat more healthfully. “The best diet for anyone is probably the diet that they can follow,” she says. “If some people find it easier to eat healthier foods because they’re planning a bit more,” she says, time restricted eating could be beneficial. from https://ift.tt/w375zQT Check out https://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ |
Authorhttps://takiaisfobia.blogspot.com/ Archives
April 2023
Categories |